ORDER :

1. Though the matter comes up on misc. application filed by the petitioner for seeking interim relief of participating in tender process, however, this Court with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, dispose of the present writ petition finally.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-firm challenging the order dated 24.04.2012 (Annex.16), whereby, the respondents have passed an order of (i) blacklisting the petitioner-firm for a term of three years, (ii) The petitioner-firm has been banned from entering into any business of the respondents, and (iii) The earnest money of the petitioner-firm has been forfeited.

3. Brief facts, as narrated, in the present writ petition are that the petitioner-firm had participated in the tender process for supply of packing/processing material and other consumable items on Rate Contract basis for the respondents in pursuance of tender floated by the respondents on 21.05.2010.

4. The petitioner is said to be a successful bidder in the tender process and it was awarded the contract. The petitioner has pleaded that after fulfilling tender conditions and supplying all materials to the respondents, due payment was made to the petitioner-firm and further security amount was also refunded.

5. The petitioner alleged that a show cause notice dated 16.01.2012 was issued to the petitioner-firm, whereby the respondents had informed the petitioner-firm that Jute Bags with 40 Kg. capacity supplied to the respondents, had failed in the test report and the respondents-Corporation on supply of below specified sub-standard goods, which resulted into substantial loss and as such the petitioner-firm was given a show cause notice, as why the petitioner-firm may not be blacklisted.

6. The petitioner has pleaded that after receipt of said show cause notice, reply was submitted on 21.03.2021, where request was made to supply test report and any complaint received by the respondents against the petitioner.

7. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondents vide letter dated 21.01.2012, supplied the test reports to the petitioner-firm and after the test reports were perused by the petitioner-firm, it was revealed that the tender documents which had given specifications about the Jute Bags to be supplied, have not met the prescribed standard quality of the product supplied by the petitioner and as such on assumption and presumption, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner-firm.

8. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondents after entering into some correspondence finally passed the impugned order.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire genesis of issuing the show cause notice was on account of involvement of the petitioner-firm in litigation, wherein the petitioner-firm was questioning the liability of another bidder, who was found successful in the subsequent tender and as such the petitioner firm had also filed Writ Petition No.11977/2011 before this Court and the respondents felt annoyed with the action taken by the petitioner-firm and accordingly passed the arbitrary order.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made following submissions:-

1. The impugned order dated 24.04.2012 has been passed against the principal of natural justice as the petitioner-firm was not specifically informed about the permanent debarment and further there was no notice specifying the reason of debarring the petitioner-firm permanently.

2. The action of the respondents by forfeiting the earnest money was not warranted as none of the tender document/conditions prescribed that such order of forfeiting the earnest money could be passed by the respondents.

3. The General Terms & Conditions of the Contract provided that security deposit was to be made by the successful bidder and security deposit was to be refunded after successful completion of contract period and the petitioner-firm was released its security deposit and thereafter the only clause available with the resp